memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Sovereign class/archive
Sovereign class (June 28 2004) Self-nomination. I think it's quite good. ;) Ottens 12:36, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST) *Seconded. Very good work, but it still needs lots of additional pictures, IMO. -- Redge 12:51, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST) *Support. But there are already plenty of images... don't go overboard, please!-- Dan Carlson 16:18, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::I checked back and almost all pictures I was looking for are now there. Thanks! -- Redge 16:36, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST) :::Archived --Alan del Beccio 10:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Defensive Systems I believe that Sovereign class ships have Regenerative shielding (Note: I do not believe that the Regenerative Shielding article is correct, see it's talk page for details), but I cannot remember where I found this little tidbit of information. The Prometheus class features regen. shields, so it would make sense that the Sovereign class would as well; both are suppost to represent the pinnacle of starfleet technology. Also, I believe that in the game Star Trek: Bridge Commander, the USS Sovereign has regenerative shielding, and while I know this is not technically canon, it shouldn't be flatly disregarded. Also, I am pretty sure the Sovereign class has Ablative armor. Defiant class ships feature ablative armor, and are 3 years older in design. I believe this is also referenced in ST: Bridge Commander. I just think that it would make sense that starfleet's flagship would feature the most advanced defensive technology. -- BMS 00:31, 13 Sep 2004 (CEST) The Sovereign almost certainly has both Regenerative Shields as well as Ablative armor. Nemesis is what gives us this indication. Traditionaly shields on Federation ships do not regenerate at a speed that would be helpful in a combat situation. It can take hours for the shields to get back to full levels. But in Nemesis the Enterprise had shields constantly on the verge of failing only to have them back up to nominal strength within minutes. Furthermore, the hull strikes against the Enterprise indicate that damage did not radiate outward much more then the weapon strike itself. Rather then damage radiating out from the weapon strike and NDFing away sections of the hull like seen in Dominion battles, each strike was extremely limited. Similar to Ablative armor, only not as thick as what the Defiant packs. Alyeska 05:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC) Favorite design I really like the Sovereign Design. I think it is a beautiful ship, and one of my favorites. But does anyone think its just a little too militiristic for Star Trek? If you look close you will see that since the Dominion War Star Trek actualy got more militaristic. I gues it is becouse that´s what new comer to Star Trek whant to see. Also it is important to say that we have seen nearly nothing about the Sovy so far beside her "fire power". So she could also guard a lot of sience laps,... . But one thing is for shure, she is more combat orientaded than the Galaxy. Forestin / USS Esmeralda *I'd have to agree that the design is more military in nature, but that seems to be what the fans have been asking for. Star Trek has always been about reflecting what is currently happening in the world and right now things seem to be a bit more dangerous than they were when TNG first began airing. I think a lot of people have turned their back on the ideal future and now want to see a more realistic, i.e.. dangerous and paranoid, representation. Look at the success of the new Battlestar Galactica for instance. people just don't seem to beleive in the reality of peace these days. Lt. Commander Schinke Designation and other Canon-issues I'd like to have a problem with the designation of the USS Sovereign: NCC-73811 is the number that the game ST:Bridge Commander made it to have, and is therefore non-canon. The alternative would be to list it as NCC-75000, which is non-canon too: Since it was never explicitly mentioned with his designation, some fans phoned Mr. Okuda and asked him if they could give it the NCC-75000 designation. According to legend, he mumbled something like "OK" or so... Personally, I like 73811 more than 75000, since a number with lots of zeros is not a good designation for a Starfleet ship ;-) --Echoray 04:47, 19 Jan 2004 (PST) :Well, if someone called me (probably in the middle of the night) with that question, my answer would sound a little different... ;) :Anyway, both numbers seem to be non-canon (73811 probably being a little more reliable), which should be noted on the USS Sovereign-page. Generally, I have a problem with much of the details on starships appearing here recently - much of it doesn't sound too reliable, especially without proper references. -- Cid Highwind 05:46, 19 Jan 2004 (PST) ::I agree.. There seems to be A LOT of DITL-based or otherwise non-canon info. I've just resolutely removed all the non-canon from this article. Because the truth, we know VERY LITTLE about the Sovereign-class. -- Harry 07:03, 19 Jan 2004 (PST) :::Actually, Harry, I wrote (or re-wrote) a large portion of that article, and 99% of it IS canon. I've included my original text here: :::After the horrific lost of 39 starships in the battle of Wolf 359, Starfleet began to develop new starship designs designed to combat the threat of the Borg Collective (see also: Defiant class). :::The Sovereign class was one of the results. Considered to be one of the most powerful vessels in the Alpha Quadrant, the Sovereign class serves as Starfleet's first line of defence. Despite her florid designation, the Sovereign is essentially a battleship, with the most advanced weaponry available to the Federation. Primary amongst these is a large quantum torpedo turret mounted forward of the deflector dish, which is capable of firing four rounds in a second.1 Backup to the quantum torpedoes is provided by photon tubes; four of these are located at the base of the engineering section in pairs which face forward and aft.2 Each is capable of firing twelve round bursts.3 The warp engines of the Sovereign were of a new design which eliminates subspace distortion effects inherent to standard warp drives without the use of variable geometry nacelles (as found on the Intrepid class), a feature later becoming common on most Starfleet ships.4 :::The second ship off the production line was commissioned as the sixth starship Enterprise following the loss of its Galaxy class predecessor at Veridian III by Klingon renegades in 2371.5 The Sovereign class baptism of fire came in 2373 when a Borg vessel again attacked the Federation and the Sovereign class starship USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E) participated in the counter-attack at Earth6. :::The only non-canon that I left in was the first paragraph - everything else is based on what we've seen, or reasonable extrapolation. :::1. source - on screen in First Contact. :::2. source - model and design blueprints. :::3. source - comments by Rick Sternbach. :::4. extrapolation based on TNG "Force of Nature" and lack of Voyager-style tilting nacelles on any other new type of Starfleet vessel. :::5. Yes, this bit is spec, but based on the fact that we haven't seen another Sovereign, and the necessary existence of at least one other (the Sovereign herself). :::6. extrapolation based on the relatively young age of the Sovereign class at the time of First Contact. :::I actually didn't use DITL for most of this, but my own knowledge of the Sovereign's canon capabilities and advancements. I can agree with the removal of non-canon, but I would have appreciated discussing what should and should not be kept. You could have toned down the non-canon sections, but kept the systems descriptions. I will do so now, and re-add the appropriate sections. -- DarkHorizon 14:28, 19 Jan 2004 (PST) :::As for the other small section that was removed, how was the statement that the Sovereign fared better than the Norexans non-canon? -- DarkHorizon 14:28, 19 Jan 2004 (PST) According to info provided by Rick Sternbach, The Sovereign Class is the replacement for the Excelsior Class. He also has said that the ship is a Heavy Cruiser. These facts were desided while they were designing it for FC. He stated this in a disccusion thread on the TrekBBS a few months ago. He did reveil mor info, but I don't remember all of it. The ASDB has the best collection of cannon and speculitive info of any site that I have seen. The webmaster has gotton most of his info from the people that work, or have worked on the show. 05:11 5 Feb. 2004 Gluemyster Engineering, Sickbay, et al. Is there nothing relevant to say about Engineering, Sickbay, Shuttlebays, etc..? I suggest writing short paragraphs about them, and place the relevant image next to the text so that people wont have to puzzle the right picture to the right text. -- Redge 12:13, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST) :As I said, I'm working on this page. Patience! ;) Ottens 12:16, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::Sorry, I missed that. Happened a few times to me that changes were already made, but if I'm correct, the engine gives you your revisions back after a conflict. You alright? -- Redge 12:28, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST) :I know but I did something wrong, so I lost it. So I had to type everything again. :S But it's almost done now. Ottens 12:32, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST) Sovereign Dimensions The Tech manual gives these: Length : 641 m Beam : 470 m Height : 145 m could someone explain where the dimensions in this article came from? * Searching around, the specs at www.ditl.org are quite similar to the ones in the article, DITL mentions that it is background information, so it may not be canon. However, didn't Picard state in First Contact that the Sovereign was less than 700 meters long? Enzo Aquarius 17:12, 20 Dec 2004 (CET) **Yet the Tech manual gives different dimensions. Granted, the Tech manual is not the most reliable source, but surely it would take precedence over DITL, however well respected that site is. --Andrew 12-21-04 17:17 PST ::I believe those dimensions are for the Galaxy class. There's no way that the Sovereign can match those dimensions -- just look at the ship itself. 470 m is more than two-thirds that of 641 m, and the Sovereign class is not two-thirds as wide as it is long. -- EtaPiscium 02:21, 22 Dec 2004 (CET) :::Yes, I believe you're right on that account. Andrew 12-22-04 17:24 PST i blame the messed up dimensions on people not understanding the metric system. it pops up a lot in books and film from the USA. Civilians?? Are there any civilians onboard Sovereign class starships? I know the the logical answer is no, since it's primary role is not long range exploration like Galaxy, but is there any canon, not speculative info on this matter? Maximum speed? The article states that the maximum speed of the Sovereign-class is Warp Factor 9.7 but it is supposed to be the fastest class of Starfleet vessel save the Prometheus class and the Intrepid class has a maximum speed of Warp 9.975. Was the scale changed again between 2371 and 2372 or is the figure of 9.7 another Star Trek inconsistency?--Scimitar 23:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) Additional Pictures? Redge, you said the article could use more pictures. I have quite a lot of Sovereign images on my computer. Where do you think additional images could be used? The article already has quite a lot of images, in my opinion. ;) Ottens 12:53, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST) :Well, I see that in the mean time you've already added a few. All I'm still missing is a picture (and some text) on the Captain's Yacht (Insurrection) and main shuttlebay. -- Redge 16:13, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST) :: I would still like to see the above addressed to. I am surprised that this has featured status without any mention of the shuttle bays, shuttle craft or captains yacht, much less any images of it. It seems to focus more on its defensive capabilities than anything, which seems a bit biased, to me. --Gvsualan 23:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) There's a good picture of the captains yacht aleady, at Image:Captainsyacht.jpg, it just needs some text in the main article to help it. zsingaya 15:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) Sickbay location This article mentions Sickbay's location as Deck 7. There is another article which seems to contradict this. I have seen other sources listing Main Sickbay on Deck 8 as well. Anyone have any ideas? :It was mentioned in "First Contact" that there was a sickbay on Deck 16. Perhaps in "Nemesis", the one on Deck 7 or 8 was mentioned? Ottens 10:14, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::The Galaxy class had several sickbay facilities throughout the ship. The Sovereign, being a battleship, would also have many sickbays throughout the ship. Tiberius 02:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC) :::The problem with that is it is speculation. While TNG did establish multiple sickbays on Galaxy class starships, this was never established in canon for the Sovereign class. We have only seen one sickbay, IIRC, on the Sovereign class. There may be more, but we have never heard of them. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC) ::::But reasonable speculation. In Star trek: Generations We saw bev evacuating a sickbay. The only need for her to evacuate a sickbay is if it was in the engineering hull. Also, the Enterprise D Blueprints (probably not canonical, but done by staff members on the show) shows medical facilities scattered throughout the ship. There's also the common sense of having sickbay facilities near areas such as main engineering where people are likely to get hurt by conduits exploding etc. This, combined with the sources that say there are sickbays on several different decks in a Soverign vessel, seem to indicate to me beyond doubt that there are several sickbays on board, just as there were in the galaxy. Tiberius 02:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC) Re-used Voyager sets? I spotted the officer's quarters as a redressed Voyager briefing room (you can see the wall panels in the bathtub scene), and Sickbay is just Voyager's sickbay with rearranged furniture and different-coloured lighting, but are there others? Reversion When I said I reverted the article due to speculation, I meant stating it had undergone a refit was speculatory. However, the apparent change in number of armaments can be presented as background info. --From Andoria with Love 05:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC) Weapon Systems & Refit It should be fairly obvious that the Sovereign has undergone a refit. The number of changes to the ship would have required substansial time in drydock. We know that 4 more phaser arrays as well as 4 more torpedo launchers got added to the ship by the time of Nemesis. The warp engine placement has changed. The hump on the spine of the ship also got enlarged. This can easily be deduced purely from visual references. Alyeska 05:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC) I'm waiting for you to show up Shran. The physical model of the Sovereign class only has 12 phaser arrays as of Insurrection. By the time of Nemesis it has 16. As of Insurrection it has 4 photon torpedo launchers and 1 quantum. As of Nemesis its 8 and 1. What proof are you requiring of me to let me post the material? Alyeska 06:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC) :My apologies on the delay. As I said, it may have undergone a refit, it may not have. The fact of the matter is, it wasn't specified on-screen and is therefore only speculation. However, you may add the details you observed as background information, stating that it could have possibly been the result of a refit. --From Andoria with Love 06:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC) That it wasn't stated onscreen is irrelevent. There are very clear observed changes between Nemesis and Insurrection. The ship underwent some sort of refit in this period. You don't assume that the producers retconned the Sovereign without just cause or explination with an easier and far more logical explination is available. (link removed-- no hotlinking) This is a simple side viewing of the Enterprise-E. You can see the significant structural changes that have occured from Insurrection to Nemesis. Alyeska 06:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC) The weapon counts from all the other ships have been derived specificaly from onscreen counting of the weapons. It is very clear that the Enterprise has had a change in weapons from Insurrection to Nemesis. It astounds me that some people are fighting the issue and intentionaly posting numbers that aren't correct for either Insurrection or Nemesis. The Sovereign never had 14 phaser arrays. It had 12, now has 16. Alyeska 06:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC) :Actually, that it wasn't specified on-screen is relevant -- it's what qualifies or disqualifies info a place in the main part of the article. Since it wasn't specified -- and since it's only an observation based apparently on a model -- it only qualifies as background info. (Similar conversations have been held at Talk:Oberth class and Talk:Phase cannon). Hope this helps clear any confusion on this matter. --From Andoria with Love 06:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC) Then how come visualy determined weapon counts are in just about every other ship page eh? BTW, the information was observed from the model which is a source that comes from onscreen. Its a canon source. If you consider that background info, then dialogue is just the same. Calling the examination of the physical model background info is absurd. The ship appeared onscreen, therefore what we can glean from it is perfectly valid. Alyeska 06:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC) :Hmm... that's actually a good question. Actually, I think most of the armament listings on the other pages were specified on-screen. However, you may be right with some of those cases. Nonetheless, I do not pretend to be an expert in starship specifications, so I guess you can go ahead and add it. Sorry for any confusion and what-not. --From Andoria with Love 06:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC) ::(edit conflict) -- i believe that we can say for sure that something happened in those five years, the ship does have different/additional visible ports and changes to its structure. it would be speculation to state why they had changed or what the unaddressed items and details meant, because it wasn't explicitly stated in some cases, although if the amount of phaser arays increased, we can reliably say some were added, or possibly uncovered -- they are easy to visually account. ::I think that if more any more variables in the sidebar are being changed or discussed, we'd like to see a paragraph in the article explaining the phaser and torpedo setup of the Sovereign. For example, a pragraph listing the visually accounted for weapons ports and ports that were changed/added in the refit. That would be a good way to explain the variations in the number. Since the class has now included two modifications, maybe this, as the article focused on the Sovereign-class itself, and not the Enterprise specifically, should just state "12-16 phaser arrays" and have an extended description in a later paragraph where you can and explain where all the new phaser arrays are, and how they changed between films. ::I'd just like to see the most complete and descriptive form of this information added, maybe not as "proof" but instead just to completely explain the topic. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 06:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC) :Sounds good to me. Now, see, why couldn't I say that? (Probably the late hour... sorry. :/) --From Andoria with Love 06:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC) 12-16 would indicate 12 through 16. Better to indicate 12 or 16. Alyeska 06:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC) FYI. The weapon counts on the Akira, Nebula, Galaxy, Prometheus, and Defiant have all been derived from visual inspection of the models or observations form directly onscreen. In dialogue the Galaxy class was stated by Worf (Cononundrum episode) to have 10 phaser arrays. Akira was listed at 15 torpedo launchers from the creator, but that can be visualy confirmed. All other weapons numbers are purely counted. The Nebula, Prometheus, and Defiant figures are pure observation and no dialogue or backstage info at all.Alyeska 06:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC) Deletion? I hope this page isn't on the verge of deletion as well is it? If it is, a lot could be transferred to the ''Enterprise-E'' article. -- Ben Sisko 19:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC) Ready Room Location The ready room is on the -port- side, isn't it? That's how it was on TNG and in the Ahab scene of FC they shot the bridge discussion from the front of the bridge looking back at the turbolifts - then when Picard went to his room to sulk and get chewed out by what's-her-name, he went to the right side of the frame - that would be the port side of the ship. Did the article get it wrong or am I mistaken? 63.106.93.177 Seconded - I think Picard went port in INS, too Torlek 21:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC) Excelsior-class replacement Just what did Sternbach mean when he said that the Sovereign was meant to replace the Excelsior? Granted that John Eaves said, "I wanted a sleek, very fast ship with favourite elements from all the starships that had gone before, especially Bill George's Excelsior" (Forgotten Trek), but the Excelsiors' mission profiles by the late 24th century were more or less undignifying (with the Akiras taking over as the main cruisers). Did he mean the role the Excelsiors played when the Ambassadors were the lead ship, or did he mean the scrap role the former currently play? Torlek 21:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC) Married personnel To prevent an edit war, Is there any reason for listing that married personnel were allow to share quarters? Every single instance of married personnel have shared quarters, and it seems odd that it would be different on this class of ship. (Ie: Siskos on the Saratoga, O'Briens on Ent-D and DS9, Dax and Worf DS9, etc...) On another note, it's in the wrong section: if any mention of it at all is gonna be in the article, Crew quarters has it's own section. - AJ Halliwell 00:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC) :I think it's relevant to mention because of the time that has passed and the apparent LACK of NON-crew personnel onboard the ship, which background information suggests is a result of a Starfleet policy change. The first two examples you gave were PRIOR to the War, while the last involved two OFFICERS who were married, but had no children. Also there is the difference between "station" duty (usually with a planet close by) and "space" duty (on a ship that may be some distance from any safe harbor. :So mentioning BOTH the lack of civilians AND the ability of married crew to share quarters is an accurate description of the situation as it stands, at least for that class of starship. :Lastly, I don't think the mention is in the wrong place myself. It (the lack of extensive provision for civillians) pertains to general crew support issues as opposed to strictly a "housing" issue. YMMVCapt Christopher Donovan 02:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC) Number of decks I know this is an old hat, but here are the relevant pieces of dialogue mentioning the number of decks: Star Trek: First Contact: :Daniels: "It's pretty bad sir. It looks like they control decks 26 up to 11." ::and :Lily: "How big is this ship?" :Picard: "There are 24 decks, almost 700 meters long." --Jörg 12:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC) :Yeah, but I think at this point we have a consensus (24 original config and 29 refit), and frankly I think a lot of people are just sick of this whole back and forth... :) Capt Christopher Donovan 20:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC) ::I think the 24 (original) 29 (refit) is a perfect explanation. One would wonder why the original design had all that empty space, but oh well, not our problem ;) --OuroborosCobra talk 01:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC) :It's ENTIRELY speculation, so I won't be adding it to the article, but I suspect that the VOLUME of the ship changed little. The Galaxy class had a percentage of internal volume left "unfinished" as room for future expansion/upgrades, so did the Defiant class (that's where they wound up putting the shuttlebay). Personally, I subscribe to the theory that originally they had 24 FINISHED decks, and were upgraded to 29 finished decks after the war.Capt Christopher Donovan 01:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC) ::Sudden curious idea. This would not change the contents of the article, but do we have an MSD of the Enterprise-E from "First Contact", and another one from "Nemesis"? I would be interested in comparing the two, to see if there are any differences, or changes in deck count. If there aren't, maybe we should make a note in the background about the MSD's being wrong (I for one would rather go with character dialogue than MSDs). --OuroborosCobra talk 01:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC) :::i counted 24 decks on the nemesis MSD, but i'm fairly certain it's a reuse of the one seen in first contact. let's not forget that the problem is compounded by the fact that when riker and worf go to deck 29, there are very clearly MANY more levels below as when the viceroy falls down the turboshaft. Deevolution 01:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC) ::::Deevolution's right on two counts – there are still only 24 decks visible on the MSD image, and it is a re-use of the image from First Contact. However, although Riker and Worf were initially going to meet the Remans on Deck 29, the Remans apparently moved up through the decks pretty fast, forcing the battle to take place on Deck 9, because that's what the signs in the corridor says. --From Andoria with Love 02:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC) :::::If the fight occured on Deck 9, that answers some questions in regards to the Jeffries Tube and the mysterious shaft (Computer core?). However, what probable reason could there be for the extra 5 decks? Although the unfinished deck idea is a good one, 5 decks is quite substantial. - Enzo Aquarius 02:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC) ::::::shran is right! the signage in that scene clearly indicates deck 9. considering that and the MSD supporting 24 decks (as well as showing a vertical turboshaft and computer core alongside one another on deck 9), isn't it safe to conclude that worf simply mispoke? that he simply said deck 29 when he meant deck 9? all the visual evidence supports the simple fact that 29 was a mistake. Deevolution 02:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC) :::::::I have no problem with accepting Worf's comment as a mistake (and for all we know it is). This could solve many problems, especially any further deck discussions for the Sovereign. - Enzo Aquarius 02:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC) ::::::::Actually, it was Data who first said the ship had "lost ventral shielding on Deck 29", after which Worf reported that the Remans had boarded on Deck 29. While it is possible for Worf to make such a mistake, it's not so for Data. --From Andoria with Love 02:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC) ::I think we should gowith my idea of adding a background note about the innacurate MSD. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC) :Someone with better eyes than mine will have to double check, but could it be deck '1'9 that they meet on? Either way, it would take a few minutes to organize and move out a security team, so it's no big deal to say the Reman strike team was no longer on Deck 29, IMO...Capt Christopher Donovan 03:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)